Carpenters Pension Trust Fund v. Mark Lindquist
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund v. Tractor Equipment Sales, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2014)
- Board of Trustees of the PAMCAH-UA Local 675 Pension Fund v. SMAC Hawaii, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 2025)
- Marine Carpenters Pension Fund v. Puglia Marine, LLC (District Court, W.D. Washington 2019)
- Board of Trustees of the Ken Lusby Clerks & Lumber Handlers Pension Fund v. Piedmont Lumber & Mill Co. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2015)
- Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund (1st Cir. 2013)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Mark Alan Lindquist appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in an action by his company’s pension plan to impose joint and several withdrawal liability against him under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), as amended by the Mul-tiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(2). We review de novo, Bd. of Trs. of the W. Conference of Teamsters Pension Fund v. Lafrenz, 837 F.2d 892, 893 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1988), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lindquist failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he operated a “trade or business” under “common control” by leasing property to the company in which he was the sole shareholder when it withdrew from the pension plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1301(b)(1); see also Lafrenz, 837 F.2d at 894-95 (a for-profit truck leasing operation owned by the majority shareholders of an employer withdrawing from a pension plan constituted a “trade or business” under “common control” for purposes of imposing joint and several withdrawal liability under ERISA).
Lindquist’s argument that the district court should have applied a different definition of “trade or business” is unpersuasive. See Comm’r v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23, 27 n. 8, 107 S.Ct. 980, 94 L.Ed.2d 25 (1987) (confining its statutory construction of the phrase “trade or business” to the tax code provision at issue).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.